Yea,
they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations. 4I also will choose their
delusions, (Isa 66:)

11And for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That
they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure
in unrighteousness. (2Thes 2:)

The
ways by which to prove a thing are far too numerous and complicated for
such an introductory study as this one. My point here is not to prove
one method of investigation more effective than another, but to show
that there are many methods used for this purpose, and that they are
all fallible, and usually produce a wrong finding. Of course, the evidence
of their failure usually comes too late for us, the ones told to trust
in such findings, to benefit from such discovery.

[As
a note and a disclaimer, none of what is included in this introductory
study should be considered as accurate or informed in any context, but
merely my own synoptic interpretation of what I see described by those
who use such methods of investigation.]

Our
first example of the different theories and philosophies that can be
used to prove a point is called Beyesian (or Evidential) Probability.
This analytical process is broken into two quarters: in one of these
quarters stands the Objective school of thought based on Aristotelian
(Aristotle) logic. Then, under the same heading but using different
methodology we have the Subjective school based on personal belief or
experience rather than universal knowledge. In the Probability arena of
proof as a whole we have three basic forms: Logical (reasoning)
Probability, Epistemic (knowledge) Probability and Inductive (laws of
nature) Probability to name but a few.

Burden
of Proof:

It
is said that the burden of proof falls on the one who holds the least
likely (or the least popular) opinion. In the
area of Creationism (my word for it, don't bother to look it up) and
Evolution such a question can be of no consequence, or it can be of
ultimate consequence, depending upon the actual fact of the matter. The
relativity of the question is also dictated by who is asking the
question, the purpose in the question, and the period of time the
question is asked. For instance: when the
question is asked will determine who the burden of proof falls upon. If
the question is asked today, the burden of proof will fall upon the
least popular view, that is, the Creationist. Should the question have
been asked 30 years ago or 2,000 years ago, the burden of proof might
well have fallen upon anyone not holding the
Creationist's view, whatever other view that might have been.

As
to where the question is asked: if it is asked in
a church, then the burden of proof falls upon the Evolutionist.
However, if the question is asked in any of our public schools today,
the burden of proof falls upon the Creationist. Again, just a few years
ago, in my lifetime, in either the church or the schools the
Evolutionist would have had the burden of proof placed squarely upon
his or her shoulders.

As
for consequences. If the Evolutionist is proven to be correct when all
is said and done, then the Creationist will have lost out on a proper
grade for the subject at hand. But should the Creationist be correct,
and that Creationist have proven himself or herself worthy in other
aspects as well, then the consequences may likely be an eternal (or an
infernal) one.

Of
the many forms of reasonings and justifications, certain of them face
us in everyday life. Others may be interesting to those who wish to
debate, but not to the person on the street going about their daily
routine.

I
will begin with the very basest form of logic we encounter in normal
life activities. I will refer to these as "Sciences" rather than
theories or philosophies, even though science has no more to do with
reasoning than it does with "science" so-called (1 Timothy 6:20).

The
first I bring to your attention is the Science of Impossibility. For
this I will give two examples that we all can relate to. Example one is
the Used Car Salesman. The likelihood of being told the reality of what
is presented is next to impossible. And if impossibility were possible,
this would well fit into that category as well. Another example to fit
this area equally well is rhetoric spoken by a Politician, especially
in November of every other year. In both of these cases we learn after
it is too late the impossibility factor of what we had been told

In
the area of Literature and the Media we would call this Impossibility
Factor "Science Fiction." However, in Science Fiction we fully expect
to be told that which is impossible.

The
second form of reasoning is that of the Science of Possibility
(Probability). The differentiation between Possibility and
Impossibility is often very fine, if perceptible at all. And what is
perceived, may well be a misgiving and be altered from time-to-time.
Possibility is most often heard in two general places: the first is
Santa Anita at the race track: and the second is on the 6:00 news when
the weatherman stands before his map and tells us what his billion
dollar equipment has told him.

In
either case, the possibility of hearing the correct outcome is very
thin indeed.

What
I have just described might fit into a blanket category of "Wishful
Thinking." This next category is not much higher in its scope, but the
likelihood of a final positive outcome is a bit higher.

Earlier
I spoke of the "Burden of Proof." The burden of proof falls on the one
least likely to be correct at a given time and place. This is not
always so. For instance; it is most likely to be that when you
(or I) are the ones placed on the firing line, the burden of proof will
fall on us, the accused, regardless of
probability. I will give here two examples.

Hubby
has come home late from work twice in one week. The wife is suspicious.
Upon whom lies the Burden of Proof?

The
law has accused you of something that there is no way possible you
could have committed what you are accused of. Upon whom falls the
Burden of Proof?

In
either case, no amount of proof of innocence will be sufficient for
acquittal. And should, somehow, conviction not follow such accusation,
suspicion and record of such accusation will follow the accused forever.

Evidence
of this is the many, many people who are proven by new forms of
investigation that their years of incarceration (or even execution) was
based on erroneous information, even though at the time of their trial
the evidence against them was overwhelming.

The
next to the highest form of reasoning is that of Substantial Evidence.

Here
we have a paradox. We are expected to accept the word of someone who
claims to have "Substantial Evidence" on a given topic, such as a
lawyer in court, or a teacher on Evolution in a classroom. And we do
just that, because these are the experts who have investigated the
subject extensively. Yet, if someone tried to sell you some lumber for
your house, and told you that the wood was "substandard, you would not
take it. Am I correct?

"Sub,"
as a prefix means: "Under," or not sufficient. "Stance" means a way a
person stands, or the attitude they take. As I see it someone who holds
"Substantial" evidence is one who should not be listened to.

And
how often have we found this to be the case? I give as examples the
Politician, the Used Car Salesman, the Weatherman, the Wife, and the
Lawyer who has such a strong, but erroneous case against his client.
All proven to be "Sub- Stantial."

This
last category is the one claimed by almost all the above before they
are proven in error. For myself, when this forthcoming statement is
made, I look for the nearest exit. Here we have the findings of
Scientists throughout the ages, from the unbelievers of Noah's time who
knew full-well that rain was impossible; and the scientists who warned
Columbus of sea monsters and falling off the end of the earth; to those
who know for a certainty that Man will eventually repair this earth
because things are continually getting better and better.

Of
course I speak of those with: "Conclusive Evidence."

Conclusive
evidence to me is like the Politician who says: "I'm as honest as the
day is long;" or the husband with lipstick on his collar who says: "You
can trust me, Hon. Would I lie?" Or maybe Junior with chocolate smears
on his face pointing at the dog when mother presents the empty cookie
jar.

There
are certain classes of people who must prove
their point. In order to continue life as they have become accustom to
it, they must present a sufficient excuse, or at least an alibi for
their position when it is challenged. Others, the accusers, who deal
with those who need an alibi need only make an accusation, proof or no.
Again I present the lawyer and the accused; and the husband and the
wife.

Schools
(teachers) are another class of people who need no justification for
their stance. If you do not agree with what they say, you lose. Proof
positive to the contrary of the school's belief will only get you a
failing grade.

Government
is another such group that demands unquestioning obedience. And as the
official stance and dictates of the government changes, so the
citizenry under that government must change their beliefs and behavior
accordingly, or suffer the consequences. Some extreme examples of this
concept are Rome before Constantine and after Constantine; and Germany
before, during and after WWII.

Religion
is a powerful force to be reckoned with as well, and one that changes
its stance from moment to moment. Those who belong to any of the
numerous denominations must either change their church (which could
result in death at certain periods of history), change their views, or
abide with what they are told to abide with and keep their mouth
closed. The Anglican as well as other churches are going through just
such a transition today, moving from one doctrinal extreme to another.

Beliefs
are formed in several different ways. The first of these ways is
officially called: "Inductive Reasoning." Inductive reasoning (or
logic) is when a person uses their own personal experience to form a
conclusion. For instance, if I see a squirrel, and that squirrel has a
bushy tail, I conclude that all squirrels have a bushy tail. I could
also conclude, taking this a step farther, that all animals with a
bushy tail are squirrels.

In
the field of religion, I read that Adam sinned by eating an apple. And
by this I could come to the conclusion that eating an apple is a sin.

In
Inductive reasoning a premise is taken and built upon it, that is,
added. Knowledge (or our experience of it) added to knowledge.

The
second form of reasoning is Deductive Logic. This is just the opposite
of Inductive reasoning in that the larger premise is assumed, and
conclusions are drawn from that larger base. For instance, Aristotle
used this as a classic example of Deductive Reasoning:

All
men are mortal.

Socrates
is a man.

Therefore
Socrates is mortal.

Of
course with either deductive or inductive reasoning, the basic premise
must be true, or the subsequent conclusions drawn from that failed
premise will be false.

For
instance, using Aristotle's base premise above and subtracting from it
one could easily come to a mistaken conclusion:

All
men are mortal

Socrates
is mortal.

Therefore
Socrates is a man.

Did
you catch the error in this reasoning?

Again,
with Inductive reasoning, starting with the
smaller base and building on it, this conclusion
can be formed:

Socrates
is a man.

Socrates
is mortal.

Therefore
all mortals are Socrates.

All
these premises are based on, or have built on them a wrong conclusion,
although without thought, they seem to make
sense. But even Socrates' base premise is not true according to half
the world. The Christian world, and even a huge part of the world who
are not Christian, such as the Muslims who
believe that Jesus did not die but is alive in Heaven waiting to return
to earth, believe in at least one immortal being.
And those such as the Jews who believe in the Torah (but not in Christ)
believe in Elijah and Enoch who did not see death. So being man,
accordingly, does not infer mortality as
conclusive.

Keep
this in mind: It is the exception that must be considered to find
truth. All too often proof of one's view with a blind eye turned to
contrary evidence is what those with an agenda presents to this
unsuspecting and gullible world, who in turn accepts what they are
given in its totality.

And
this leads to the final method of investigation (according to this
study) called: "Confirmation Bias." This, in my estimation, is by far
the most widely used method of proving any subject (using all the other
methods), whether it be law, education, matrimony, government or
doctrine.

To
help explain Confirmation Bias I have reprinted here an excerpt from
Wikipedia that will describe the phenomena far better than what lies in
my capability to do so. Along with clear explanation, this excerpt
provides support for my findings that may otherwise appear biased and
divisive in themselves.

Confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive
science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new
information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids
information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a
type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference,
or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis
under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

Confirmation bias is of
interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused
if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a
preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[1]

Alternately, Murphy's Law of
Research dictates that "Enough research will tend to support your
theory."

The
thought behind this concept is that a notion is taken, a conclusion
formed, and all evidence to support that conclusion is accepted and
sought after. At the same time, all evidence against
said evidence is rejected and nullified in toto (completely). In a
word, "Truth" is not what is important, but rather being seen
as "right" is what is sought after.

Any
of the above described methods can be used in pursuit of this support.
Meanwhile maximum effort is utilized to discredit and vilify
contradictory evidence, as well as those who seek such evidence.

When
tides change there is a certain upheaval that takes place. Resistance
is met by a force that is already present and established. This
phenomena, in its natural state, can be observed at the beach. Although
the water level drops as the tide withdraws, and the water changes
direction accordingly, the waters that flow to this least source of
resistance must surmount the waters that are continuing to come ashore
driven by the preceding tide.

Germany
was long in turning the tide of public opinion against the rest of the
world. Much diligent effort was taken to subvert the minds of the
innocent and the unknowing before public opinion could be completely
and sufficiently altered. The more sudden a change is made, the more
resistance is met by that (and who) have a mind set toward the old
ways. America's changing from a Christian nation under God to a
Humanistic society under self was not an observable event, but a
gradual picking away at the underbelly of the unobservant masses.

All
of society has changed its ways and its outlook. Even those who have
seen the many changes from start to finish are unaware of the
significance of that change, and have in fact given sway to the new
direction. Resistance has been successfully averted while potential
resisters are inducted into the New World view. Such is the
effectiveness of using the technique of Confirmation Bias.

What
I have presented is the way to prove what you wish to believe, and that
you wish others to believe. It is not the way to
find ultimate "Truth." If I wanted to have a large group of followers,
I would find the most popular view prevalent in the society in which I
wished to participate, and I would repeat, rephrase and expound upon
every popular statement made by that society. Popularity lies in being
best at being the same as everybody else.

Taking
a different road from the masses means going it alone. Many people have
starved making their own way. One example of this is the great writers
of their day, and the great artists as well. During their developmental
time they were lucky to feed themselves each day. When society decided
that their art or writing was good, rather than trash, suddenly these
artists became popular, although often dead by the time of such
discovery. Did their art pieces change? Did their writing change? Of
course not. Society changed its views.

The
works of these artists were neither good nor bad. The writings of these
great writers were no better than anyone else's, and they would likely
tell you so themselves. Popular view made the difference. Not truth.

Evidence
is only evidence when it supports our own view. If evidence shows that
the million dollar painting you have hanging on your wall is not really
painted by the artist it is purported to be painted by, although just
as good if not better than the original, you will make every effort
possible to show that the painting is genuine,
even though you know it to be a lie.

This
is true in other areas of our life as well; the mother who will argue
with the teacher trying to get naughty Junior a good grade rather than
deal with Junior. The husband who will try to convince his wife that he
is faithful instead of getting rid of his mistress. The car salesman
who will try to make an extra buck rather than live on what he can make
honestly and with a clear conscience. The Politician who will....
That's a hard one. I really can't see how a politician of any sort can
remain a politician and live by his conscience.

In
the same vein, preachers and religious leaders and school teachers must
teach what they are told to teach, rather than dare
look beyond what they are told they must believe and teach, unless they
wish to risk the high probability of losing their position.

Truth
is a nonentity in society. Evidence toward truth is not sought, nor is
it desired. Those who are best noted for Truth have been persecuted and
Martyred. We have the philosophers of old. We have the martyrs of the
church, from all sides and from all ages who have stood up for Truth as
they saw it in opposition to the popular view. We have Jesus and the
Apostles who were the embodiment of Truth and the search thereof who
were convicted and killed using "Hard Evidence" of their day, killed by
those very ones who purportedly were in pursuit of "Truth".

Truth
is not popular. But Truth is the essence of life.

Here,
on this website, I am going to strive for Truth. To do this I will have
to utilize methods rarely tried, and certainly not perfected by me,
because it is a new road I travel. I can't build on what has gone
before, because what has gone before has either been muddied, grown
over with weeds of distortion, or is a road not found. Nor can I take
from that which has already been established because what is now
presented as Truth, is but a conglomeration of misconceptions,
deceptions and flat-out lies. And what is of value can not be
recognized because what little Truth there is to it has been tacked on
to fabrication and can't be properly identified.

New
searches must be made. These searches will explore every use of every
word that applies to the search at hand. Everything known to me will be
presented. And the method I will be using is one that was taught to me,
inadvertently, by a Junior High math teacher. Little did I know how
much he was teaching me at the time.

This
teacher presented a riddle of sorts that had to be solved by deductive
reasoning. It is not the net results that is sought for in the problem,
but the elimination of the elements that support the wrong or non
essential conclusions.

The
riddle goes like this:

Three
prisoners of reasonably high intelligence were incarcerated for life.
One prisoner had two good eyes, one had one good eye, and the third
prisoner was totally blind. The warden of the prison approached the
three and said: "I have a total of five hats, three red hats, and two
white hats. I will place a hat on the head of each of you, which you
cannot see, and the two I have kept back none of you can see. I will
ask each of you what color hat you have on your head. If you answer
correctly, you will be set free. But if you answer, and you are wrong,
you will be executed."

The
warden then asked the first prisoner with two good eyes the color of
his hat. The prisoner had to say: "I don't know." The warden then asked
the second prisoner with one good eye the color of his hat, to which
the prisoner had to reply: "I don't know."

The
warden then turned to the third prisoner who was totally blind and
asked the color of his hat. The blind prisoner said: "Because of what
my fellow prisoners have said, I know my hat is....."

What
color was the blind prisoner's hat, and how did he know?

There
was no guessing involved. There is a definite procedure that must be
followed to solve this riddle.

To
understand this riddle, it must be understood that it is not necessary
to know all that was not asked. In other words, what color hats the
other prisoners had on, or what color hats were not seen, is not part
of the problem. Trying to add these aspects, and
figure them out, defeats the purpose of what is being presented to the
blind prisoner. It was not the prisoner's goal to be right. It was not
his goal to figure out all the colors of the hats. And it was not the
goal of the prisoner to show off his intelligence to the warden. All
the prisoner wanted to do was pick the right color hat on his own head,
and be very sure of his answer to avoid execution, and to be released
from prison. Getting the other possible goals mixed in with the riddle
is where most people and students of... whatever, in my case the Bible,
get on the wrong path and "execute" the wrong processes.

In
my research through the findings of preachers, theologians, and others
of great fame and education: I find they center around certain
preconceived and established conclusions that fit with their (and their
associates') conclusions. I find that they have a few verses to present
that apparently support their view, but often
just barely so, and then only tenuously, and they completely ignore or
vilify verses (often adjoining and surrounding) that contradict the
verses they quote.

I
start by having everything known or available to me at my disposal. I
try to have every verse, every interpretation, and every possible
supportive or unsupportive piece of Scripture right there in front of
me. Then I try, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to eliminate all
verses that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. My study on "Saved"
is a good example of this process in application.

Then
all the verses that support one view I place in one column, and all
those that support another view I place in another column. When one of
those lists is empty because it has been clearly shown to not apply or
proves to be neutral, (and often times ends up proving what it appears
to contradict) then I know I have the Truth.

This
introduction on the study of the Bible is intended as a foreword to
just such an undertaking. The study is on the Apostles. There exists
much confusion as to who is, how many, and if there still are Apostles.
I have my evidence and many notes on this topic clearly worked out --
except for one obscure verse that could easily be set aside.

I
refuse to do so.

If
that one verse, out of the many, can not be fully resolved, the study
will never be presented on the web, at least not on this
site, or by me.

God
wrote His Book in riddles. He did so intentionally, and He said
so plainly. The Bible can not be explained through Doctrine or with
human reasoning. It must be explained by the One
who wrote it. And if we do not listen to Him, and follow His timing, it
won't be understood. This is not the view taken by many of the
churches. They believe the Bible is pure and simple and written for all
to understand. Others teach that the Bible can only be understood by
the initiated, and their own writings must be
read in supersession to the Bible.

"Apostles"
may never be presented. Like I said, the study is just one half of a
sentence from being complete. But that is half a sentence short of
Truth. If God chooses not to reveal the Truth to that one half a verse,
then it is intended for me not to be the one to
inform you of the truth of that subject. All I will say is that the
Truth is far different than what anyone I have
seen has said it is. And those who happen to be
right (actually only partially so) have ignored the conflicting verses
in order to hold to their view, which in my mind is the same as being
wrong.

Having
the right answer without having the right method is the same as being
wrong and having the wrong answer; and it is not even as good as having
the wrong answer, but having used the right
methods to achieve that answer.

In
the case of the riddle, it would be like "guessing" the correct color
of hat. And I don't believe God accepts guesses, even if they are
correct guesses. He wants us to have the right
answer, even if only partially expressed, as it has come through Him,
and His methods to bring us to that answer.

References

7But
they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of
the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink,
they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong
drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 8For
all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place
clean.

9Whom
shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand
doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the
breasts. 10For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little,
and there a little: 11For with stammering lips
and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12To
whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to
rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13But
the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a
little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and
snared, and taken.

14Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye
scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. 15Because
ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we
at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall
not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood
have we hid ourselves: 16Therefore thus saith
the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth
shall not make haste.

17Judgment also will I lay to the line,
and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the
refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. 18And
your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with
hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through,
then ye shall be trodden down by it. 19From the
time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning
shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation
only to understand the report. 20For the bed is
shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering
narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. 21For
the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the
valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring
to pass his act, his strange act. 22Now
therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have
heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon
the whole earth. (Isa 28:)

Yea,
they have chosen their own ways, and their soul
delighteth in their abominations. 4I
also will choose their delusions, and will bring their
fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake,
they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that
in which I delighted not. (Isa 66:)

7For
the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will
let, until he be taken out of the way. 8And
then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the
working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. 11And for this
cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: 12That
they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure
in unrighteousness. (2Thes 2:)

9Who
hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10And the
disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto
them in parables?11He answered
and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be
given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore
speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing
they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And
in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye
shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and
shall not perceive: 15For
this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal
them. (Mat 13:4-15)

7Howbeit
in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men. 8For
laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,
as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9And he said unto them, Full
well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition. (Mark 7:)